[Openid-specs-ab] Issue #1229: Adoption of the "OpenID Connect for W3C Verifiable Credential Objects" (openid/connect)

Alen Horvat horvat.alen at yahoo.com
Mon May 10 18:26:38 UTC 2021

Below, I summarize definitions of "claim" from different sources (identity and/or authentication documents).

>> NIST - Claim https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/claim


  A true-false statement about the limitations on the values of an unambiguously defined property called the claim’s property; and limitations on the uncertainty of the property’s values falling within these limitations during the claim’s duration of applicability under stated conditions.
>> NIST - Claimant https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/claimant
A party whose identity is to be verified using an authentication protocol.
A subject whose identity is to be verified using one or more authentication protocols.
The person who is asserting his or her identity

>> NIST - Credential https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/credential
   2. 2. Evidence attesting to one’s right to credit or authority.
   1. 1. Evidence or testimonials that support a claim of identity or assertion of an attribute and usually are intended to be used more than once.
>> OIDC Core
    Piece of information asserted about an Entity. 
    Data presented as evidence of the right to use an identity or other resources.

>> IdM Glossary of Terms: (https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/download/attachments/1540598/CMU-identity-glossary.pdf)
Claim (Assertion) is a statement of the value of one or more identity attributes; e.g. if Ben is currently a
CIT freshman, the Identity Management system could create a credential containing the claim: “Ben’s
affiliation is student”.
Credential is an object that is verified when presented during an authentication transaction. Credentials
consist of one or two elements:
1. Identity Attributes (required): most often just a single identifier (e.g. username) associated with
the entity being authenticated. However, in many circumstances, other identity attributes may
be required (e.g. assertion of a right to use license for a particular resource)
2. Verifier (optional as part of the credential

>> https://www.gsma.com/identity/glossary
A claim made by an actor stating its identity. Without validation, no assumptions can be made regarding the actor’s identity. An Identity Claim is usually made by a User towards a Service Provider.
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/#dfn-claims
   - claim
      - An assertion made about a subject. 

BR, Alen

    On Monday, 10 May 2021, 19:55:18 CEST, David Chadwick via Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:  

 On 10/05/2021 17:29, Tom Jones wrote:
I have a problem when using ccg definitions with the existing standards. This is openID not ccg. 
  I don't believe that your definition of claim matches the existing use in computer security or in common language.  Per m-w  
But doesn't it match your (ie. OpenID's) definition of a claim?

    a: a right to somethingspecifically : a title to a debt, privilege, or other thing in the possession of anotherThe bank has a claim on their house.  b: an assertion open to challengea claim of authenticityadvertisers' extravagant claims
     Be the change you want to see in the world ..tom    
  On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:00 AM David Chadwick via Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:
We do not need to provide definitions as they already exist in the W3C VC Data Model Recommendation, so we can simply reference them. They are:

   - claim
      -  An assertion made about a subject. 
   - credential
      -  A set of one or more claims made by an issuer.
   - A verifiable credential is a tamper-evident credential that has authorship that can be cryptographically verified. 
You will note that the W3C recommendation does not say anything about what the assertion may be, but if you look it up in a dictionary you will get something like
Assertion - a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason 
Please tell me what is unclear about the above
Kind regards

 On 10/05/2021 16:36, Tom Jones via Openid-specs-ab wrote:
 And I find the lack of clarity to be extremely rude and disrespectful of any sort of meaningful conversation about the issues. If you have a better definition of claim, please let us hear it.
 thx ..Tom (mobile)  
  On Mon, May 10, 2021, 8:28 AM Oliver Terbu via Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:
 This is another example of an extremely rude and disrespectful tone by the same person: 
  "I want clarity of language. Right now we just have a claim = some crap and credential = a pile of crap." http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/2021-May/008233.html  
  On Mon, 10 May 2021 at 14:39, Kristina Yasuda via Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:
  Thank you, Nat. 
  As promised, I wanted to outline the relationship between "OpenID Connect for W3C Verifiable Credential Objects" (OIDC4VCO) draft and other existing drafts. (point 2 in this issue)  ※ Note that there was a proposal to rename the draft  "OpenID Connect for W3C Verifiable Presentations", but I will use OIDC4VCO abbreviation for now.
   - Relationship with OpenID Connect Core: OIDC4VCO uses mechanisms already defined in OIDC Core, and does not introduce any breaking changes.
   - Relationship with SIOP V2 draft: SIOP V2 draft will refer to the OIDC4VCO draft wrt how W3C verifiable presentations (VPs) can be transported using SIOP model, since OIDC4VCO draft defines a generic way how W3C VPs can be used with various OIDC flows including SIOP V2.
   - Relationship with Claims Aggregation draft (and Credential Provider draft once contributed): these drafts will be used by the OP to receive credentials from the Claims Provider, so that the OP will be able to present received credentials to the RP using OIDC4VCO draft. These drafts should be aligned as much as possible.
   - Relationship with DIF Presentation Exchange (PE) draft: DIF PE draft could be used as part of the request syntax in OIDC4VCO draf, which can be discussed once OIDC4VCO draft is adopted. DIF PE is a query language that is protocol agnostic, and it does not replace OIDC4VCO draft.
  This is an initial summary and additional input from the editors/working group is very welcome.
  A work item to enable transporting W3C VPs using OpenID Connect, will most likely not be successful outside OpenID Foundation AB/C Working Group, because that is where the collective OpenID Connect  expertise resides.  
  Best, Kristina 
   差出人: Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net> が Nat via Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> の代理で送信
 送信日時: 2021年5月7日 0:55
 宛先: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
 CC: Nat <issues-reply at bitbucket.org>
 件名: [Openid-specs-ab] Issue #1229: Adoption of the "OpenID Connect for W3C Verifiable Credential Objects" (openid/connect)     New issue 1229: Adoption of the "OpenID Connect for W3C Verifiable Credential Objects"
 Nat Sakimura:
 SIOP SC recommended the adoption of “[OpenID Connect for W3C Verifiable Credential Objects](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.openid.net%2Fpipermail%2Fopenid-specs-ab%2Fattachments%2F20210505%2Fa198527a%2Fattachment-0001.pdf&data=04%7C01%7CKristina.Yasuda%40microsoft.com%7C546f6f574aa946624ea408d910a766d3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637559134036105710%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=LdCCcQ1tptJ290hqLdPsJdDWACLjeswgOwEKvhBi%2FyM%3D&reserved=0)” \[1\] as a working group item. 
 \[1\] [https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.openid.net%2Fpipermail%2Fopenid-specs-ab%2Fattachments%2F20210505%2Fa198527a%2Fattachment-0001.pdf&data=04%7C01%7CKristina.Yasuda%40microsoft.com%7C546f6f574aa946624ea408d910a766d3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637559134036115666%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=38hwxalY%2FRk1ypItq%2Bnxnhd26OE4uUJ79XUm1T8DVNw%3D&reserved=0](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.openid.net%2Fpipermail%2Fopenid-specs-ab%2Fattachments%2F20210505%2Fa198527a%2Fattachment-0001.pdf&data=04%7C01%7CKristina.Yasuda%40microsoft.com%7C546f6f574aa946624ea408d910a766d3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637559134036115666%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=38hwxalY%2FRk1ypItq%2Bnxnhd26OE4uUJ79XUm1T8DVNw%3D&reserved=0)
 Some concerns were expressed by a few WG members. 
 This ticket is to give an opportunity for those members to express their concerns and proposers to reply to them. 
 There are a few criteria for non-adoption of documents: namely
 1. If the draft does not fall into the scope of the WG. 
 2. If the draft is overlapping with existing drafts, the technical content should be raised as an issue and eventually result in PR rather than starting a new draft. 
     1. NOTE: A non-overlapping portion can be made as an independent document so proposers should consider creating such. 
 3. If there is a legal or reputational risk for the OIDF in adopting the document. \(The board may intervene on this ground.\) 
 If the issues are only on the technical nature of the proposed draft that does not fall into the above criteria, then, it should be dealt with during and after the adoption of the document. 
 Openid-specs-ab mailing list
 Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
 Openid-specs-ab mailing list
 Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
 Openid-specs-ab mailing list
 Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
Openid-specs-ab mailing list
Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
 Openid-specs-ab mailing list
 Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
Openid-specs-ab mailing list
Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20210510/77000e19/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list